Keener goes into the specifics if you are interested. What’s the probability in your mind her healing occurred? Or Dr. George’s miraculous resuscitation? These are rare, but probably more numerous than is commonly thought, and well documented.
Mentioned elsewhere recently is that children make the best philosophers. Then there’s this:
Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it. Mark 10:14-16
God wants us to be ingenuous (that does not mean gullible). Dissecting legitimate testimony with the express purpose of denying its legitimacy is the opposite of that.
Keener often tells the story of how in talking with his colleagues, he will bring up the problem with Hume’s skepticism about miracles. That ultimately the skeptic must call into question the reliability of the witness, and Keener’s colleagues, knowing Keener’s background, then politely change the subject.
That’s where objective evidence comes into play. If we have objective evidence then we don’t have to rely on testimony. Besides, people lie. I wish that didn’t happen, but they do. People are also honestly wrong at times.
As an example, many cases have been overturned because of DNA fingerprinting. In one case, a man was convicted of rape based on the testimony of the victim. Later, that man was freed once DNA evidence demonstrated he was innocent.
For the specific claim that I responded to earlier, the only evidence you have supplied thus far is a doctor’s subjective opinion. Being that the opinion comes from the same doctor who is claiming there are miracles I think it is only fair to point out the potential bias in the opinion. The objective evidence would be very helpful in this case.
Setting a high standard, and expecting laboratory-like objectivity is a personal choice which I can appreciate. As much as I found the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus believable, it just wasn’t enough to carry me over the finish line. The self-evident testimony of the Spirit was the winning combination. Also, and by adding in the OT narrative you have a trifecta in Christian epistemology. Acts 2:14-36.
I would fully agree that personal experiences play a large part in the path that people take. I see nothing wrong with that. How each of us becomes convinced of what we believe will be a personal journey.
Besides people have to distinguish between what they find sufficient evidence for and what they already have an operation belief in and will continue to believe unless what that is should be conclusively disproven. We don’t hold every belief to the same standard nor should we. But if we’re to deal honestly with each other we shouldn’t be pushing to sell our pet beliefs to others like a use salesman spinning a tale about a car only having been driven once a week to church by a little old lady who lived just down the block.